Video: Obama demands openness on military action …

posted at 8:46 am on March 26, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

The best part of having elected as President a man who pandered to the anti-war Left during his campaign are all of the little video nuggets that campaign left behind as markers for hypocrisy. Weasel Zippers finds this doozy from the August 2007 AFL-CIO debate broadcast live on MSNBC, in which candidate Barack Obama passionately argues that decisions of foreign policy and military action cannot just take place between “Washington insiders,” but must involve the American public as well, calling this point a “seminal question”:

But the fact of the matter is that when we don’t talk to the American people — we’re debating the most important foreign policy issues that we face, and the American people have a right to know. It is not just Washington insiders that — are part of the debate that has to take place with respect to how we’re going to shift our foreign policy. This is a seminal question. — Barack Obama, August 8, 2007

Actually, this is more interesting than even this small clip does justice. If you’re wondering why Obama’s practically yelling in this clip, it’s because he’s responding to a criticism from Chris Dodd over Obama’s earlier suggestion that he would unilaterally invade Pakistan if then-dictator Pervez Musharraf stopped cooperating against al-Qaeda. Dodd called that statement “dangerous,” and here’s Obama’s response in full:

SEN. OBAMA: I did not say that we would immediately go in unilaterally. What I said was that we have to work with Musharraf, because the biggest threat to American security right now are in the northwest provinces of Pakistan and that we should continue to give him military aid contingent on him doing something about that.

But the fact of the matter is that when we don’t talk to the American people — we’re debating the most important foreign policy issues that we face, and the American people have a right to know. It is not just Washington insiders that — (cheers, applause) — are part of the debate that has to take place with respect to how we’re going to shift our foreign policy. This is a seminal question.

MR. OLBERMANN: Gentlemen, I have to end this segment here because we are —

SEN. OBAMA: It’s a fundamental question.

Actually, he did say we would go in unilaterally, and “working with Musharraf” was the problem in his statement:

“I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges,” Obama will say, according to speech excerpts provided to ABC News by his campaign, “but let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Obama will speak to the nation on Monday, ten days after he consulted with only a few “Washington insiders” and then launched a war that the Constitutional scholar argued was illegal when he was just a candidate for the presidency. Think Obama will try to explain these earlier statements and square them with his own actions this month? Neither do I.

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

I can never get away from the comparison with President Bush’s treatment in the media. This is the biggest chance to draw a comparison between Preisdent Obama and President Bush, heck, President Obama and his own words and the media is not touching it.

Mark Steyn has a column today that hits many of the points I’ve been making about Libya over the last few days and weeks, but written with his inimitable wit and style (he didn’t mention the nation-building scenario). The piece is brilliant, of course :-)

Most significantly, in his concluding paragraph Steyn tells us,

But lost along the way is hard-headed, strategic calculation of the national interest.

Historically, Benghazi is part of Cyrenaica, founded in the 7th century BC by Greek colonists around the ancient city of Cyrene.

Tripoli – 1,200 miles to the West – was, on the other hand, founded by Carthaginians, who wanted to trade with the indigenous Berber tribesmen.

Over two millennia both colonies maintained their separate identities. Greek-influenced Cyrenaica developed a reputation for arts, crafts, medicine and learning while Tripoli focused on the commercial skills of its founders. The Roman historian Plutarch described the Carthaginians as ‘coarse and gloomy, submissive to those who govern them and despotic to those they govern’.

I am more angry at the MSM than some slippery politician about this whole thing. You EXPECT politicians to lie and obfuscate but you also EXPECT someone to call them on their hypocrisy, especially when it is blatant and oh-so-recent!

Plutarch was writing about an empire that had centuries before been destroyed following the threat from Hannibal (no not the Silence of the Lambs dude :-). The entire nation was sacked and burned to the ground and hadn’t come close to resembling a civilization again for a millennium.

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

There goes our constitutional scholar again. Under the constitution, the president has no power to authorize the use of military force. He is granted the authority to do so in the event of imminent threat by the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

These statements amply demonstrate Obama’s hypocrisy but his leftist MSM supporters will be blind to it. After all, before he sent America’s military to Libya, Obama obtained John Kerry’s Permission Slip from the UN.

Present-dent Platitude pulls out another sound bite to appease the incurious. You don’t like the current explanation? Wait a bit until he finds another. The panting media will never go back to their archives to challenge the contradictions.

I am more angry at the MSM than some slippery politician about this whole thing. You EXPECT politicians to lie and obfuscate but you also EXPECT someone to call them on their hypocrisy, especially when it is blatant and oh-so-recent!

Does anyone expect Obama to actually take any questions?

Mord on March 26, 2011 at 9:28 AM

As my unit was sitting in the Frankfurt Airport prior to the invasion, it occured to me the news media was doing every form of story that would dissuade President Bush from using force in Iraq. And of course after the war started they used the troops death milestones as a daily/weekly/monthly reminder the cost of President Bush’s decision. This coverage has an effect on the troops that are able to see it and on their families.

What news of the cost now? Where are the peace protests now? If there were any, where is the media coverage of it?

Never let a liberal or someone in the media give you the impression that they actually care about the harm war causes those in the military. The services are a collective pawn for their political objectives.

McCain, R-Ariz., said on CBS’ “The Early Show” that he hopes the United States, or others in the international community, supplies rebels with arms, as it once did insurgents fighting the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.

It would be fun to hear what the European “insiders” think of Barack Obama after the latest round of farcical actions, after the sophisticated Europeans went as ga-ga over him 2 1/2 years ago as the Dems and the big media on this side of the pond. Odds are the George W. Bush “Miss Me Yet?” images have been translated into several different languages by now.

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

This video is “highly edited”. Because Obama then goes on to say:

“However, the President does have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation after obtaining the approval of the UN and then fly his family to Brazil for vacation”

“… but let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again …”

Well, at least he’s not a “Troofer”, gotta give him credit for that. Many of his worshippers ARE Troofers.

Tony737 on March 26, 2011 at 9:29 AM

He’s not a Troofer, but he sure is a Doper. He – his party and the MSM – think the war which Muslims are waging around the world (which they don’t acknowledge)will be won once bin Laden is dead. They are beyond stupid.

I can never get away from the comparison with President Bush’s treatment in the media. This is the biggest chance to draw a comparison between Preisdent Obama and President Bush, heck, President Obama and his own words and the media is not touching it.

It’s like living in a surreal landscape.

hawkdriver on March 26, 2011 at 8:52 AM

Heck, all you have to do is tune in the insane asylum known as MSNBC on any day of the week, (provided you have a good leak-proof barf bag) and watch the Lunatic Lineup all circling the wagons around Obama and trying to compare him to Franklin Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and whoever else they can dig up, while feebly attempting to make him look like the greatest thing to ever happen to this country.

Just trying to sit through a few minutes of Hardball now can be a stomach-turning experience! Chris “Tingles” Matthhews now practically creams in his jeans at the very mention of Obama!

I thought Comcast was going to start cleaning house over there after Olbermann got the heave-ho! What happened?!!